Friends

Latest Visitors

Posts I've Made

I can hardly wait to see the abuse of the overhead bins that will begin soon

If there is revenue to be realized in checked bags I don't think the airlines are going to allow much "abuse" in the carry-on rules anymore.

There was a time when they allowed massive carry-on abuse because it lowered their cost of handling checked bags, but now that the checked bags are revenue producers you can pretty much bet carry-on regs will get more attention and tighter control.

To be honest, compared to what I paid domestically 20 or 25 years ago, airline seats today are really inexpensive. Myself, I don't have to much issue with the baggage charges. It's either pay more or have fewer airlines, flights and options. That's tightening up already.

In my view flying across the country for a few hundred buck, or now for a few hundred bucks and a couple baggage charges is a steal. And if I have an emergency or don't book early enough to get decent prices...well that's just the the way the ball bounces

I guess we all make the assumption that enhances our position, but I have to ask anyway: how do you know that?

For all we know it could have caused zero disturbance, it could have been highly damaging or any point in between. And for that reason arguing the merits, or lack thereof, of DD's actions seems pointless were it only about the handling of the nudibranchs. In my mind what happened to the nudis or the surrounding environment isn't particulalry important at this point in time. I am curious as to why NatGeo or anyone else would find something positive about describing the handling of the animals.

The greater good you and others speak of could have been accomplished without handling the animals as well, but it would surely have taken more time and more money to do so. Perhaps that's the key?

Then neither should it be for David Doubilet, Barack Obama or my high school sweetheart....Milly....insofar as it is being done to create a pretty picture.

Mind you, I am not beating on David but rather the suggestion on this forum that a pro has a greater right or need to move animals in order to enhance their photographic image.

Only a few people in the world are even going to consider doing this. The pool of potential candidates for this would be limited to underwater photographer at the level of "obessive amateur" or higher.

Maybe in far flung locales, but not in the the Caribbean or other relatively crowded destinations. This simply is not a good example to be publishing.

The people who have gone out and spent "way too much money" on photographic gear are not the people I am speaking about. They have already determined what they find acceptable or unacceptable, and whatever level of respect for the water and it's inhabitant's they hold dear will not be affected by Doubilet's touching or some other pro's speech on not touching. It's the masses who descend by the thousands ever year on easy to access or less expensive islands which may well be influenced by this particular magazine. And they don't even have to have a camera in their hands.

And I really very seriously doubt that the Nat Geo images will cause an onslaught of photograhers rushing to the reefs to shoot glamous nudies on portable slugwalk studios!!!

You have created something of a straw man here. The reality is that all it will take is a small percentage of those who already engage in regular dive travel to become a bit more free with their hands, and/or to tranlsate David's handling of nudis to any other animal or plant they may want a better look at, for whatever reason.

On the whole it seems like a particularly dumb idea on Nat Geo's part to advertise the behaviour engaged in capturing these images even if one, like you, finds the behavior itself insignificant if not acceptable.

However when diving with people who make a living as photographers I have not seens any "reef ravaging".

On the other hand you are now partaking in a conversation regarding the handling of animals for the purpose of enhancing the photographic image, in which Doubilet is the (for lack of better term) guilty party. Who'd-a-thunk-that last week? And keep in mind if it was me who took these pictures and disclosed the methods and then submitted them to Wetpixel's POTW the response would be far more, shall we say, energetic than what has been leveled against David so far.

While it surprises me that David and NatGeo disclosed his actions I do find it gratifying that he did not tell us one thing and do another. Certainly he knew full well the uw-photo and diving community would do an intensive post-morten on his capture of these images. But it remains disconcerting to think of people without the benefit if engaging in conversations like that going on here, finding allowance to extend their behavior underwater because they know NatGeo and Doubilet did.

but the photographer in me would have been extremely disappointed to have found David Doubilet photoshopping out backgrounds.

In film days a photographer submitted to the mag by sending in exposed film only. All developing/processing was done by nat geo staff. I suspect in today's game the photographer submits virgin RAW files only and all post-processing is done by NG staff as well. It is very likely that every single image we see in Nat Geo is manipulated, in the truest sense of the term.

I tend to agree with the assumptions that there was probably no harm done to the nudi's, but I am curious why a magazine like Nat Geo and a photographer like Doubilet wouldn't simply not disclose the animal handling and allow the public to assume the backgrounds were done in post. If the animal handling was a bad choice the disclosure would seem to be a worse one, if only because it may give rationale to divers and photographers who until now may have been reticent to engage in this level of animal manipulation.

Still, in my experience diving around people who make a living at this game (and not speaking about David specifically here).....animal manipulation as well as reef ravaging isn't exactly an uncommon occurance. It doesn't usually happen on one of their guided tours or instructional trips, but there has always been more than a few sanctimonious foxes in the hen-house in this regard